Women’s Brains deals with the abuse of scientific data in order to “prove” negative social analyses with prejudiced groups such as women, blacks, and poor people. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould points out the flaws in the scientific methods of various scientists and correctly asserts that many scientists incorrectly used anthropometric data to support social analyses that degrade prejudiced groups.
In Women’s Brains, Gould argues that the data used by scientist Paul Broca was misused only in order to confirm the inferiority of women and other discriminated groups. Through anthropometrics, the scientific study of the measurements and proportions of the human body, Broca and his colleagues “proved” that women were intellectually inferior, because on average the size of their brains were smaller than men’s. Even though Broca’s numbers were sound and accurate, Gould states, “. . .science is is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing” (Gould 1). This means that even though the data proves that women’s brains are smaller than men’s it did not take into account body stature, height, weight, etc., which all contribute to the size of the brain in a human body. As Gould describes, “. . .the true figure [of the difference of brain
…show more content…
weight/size between males and females] is probably close to zero and may as well favor women as men” (3). Gould is asserting that the data does not permit the intellectual inferiority of either gender, and was manipulated to support a adverse social analysis. Women were not the only ones being degenerated, “Women, blacks, and poor people suffered the same disparagement, but women bore the brunt of Broca’s argument because he had easier access to the data on women’s brains” (4). Not only did scientists like Broca incorrectly use these figures to devalue women, but also used it to further prejudice other social groups. Abuse of anthropometric data can also be found throughout history in early criminalistics and during the appalling Holocaust. Scientists misused the data to degrade or convict these individuals, and falsely concluded that the measurements of their bodies were a sign of inferiority. Anthropometrics were introduced to criminalistics in the late nineteenth century, by Alphonse Bertillon, when the measurement of the forearm and arm length was used to identify criminals. Often times police officers would abuse this data to play on racial prejudices and wrongly convict African Americans through the use of vague anthropometrics. This system would later be deemed unreliable because measurements of the arm and other body parts perceived to be “independent variables” of a person could be commonly combined under a person’s body “stature”. The same type of methodology could be found during the years of the Holocaust to demean groups that the German Nazis found “inferior”. The Nazis used anthropometrics to determine if individuals were Aryan or Non-Aryan, and also to determine whether the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals in the concentration camps were fit to work. The use of this data in both cases proved inaccurate, and in turn was just a way to degrade certain individuals and play on social prejudices. Some people may say that many scientists use data correctly to support social analyses; therefore, we should believe most credited scientists. Scientists do use data correctly when they use the right scientific method and then draw the correct conclusions from that information. However, there have been various amounts of scientific data that has been abused and been detrimental to certain groups, such as women, African Americans, Jews, etc,. Approximately 6 million Jews were executed during the Holocaust, many of those deaths due to abuse in anthropometric data and manipulation of reasoning. Women felt the same effects in having less opportunities than men because of their “mental inferiority”. Le Bon, one of Broca’s colleagues, “. . . was horrified by the proposal of some American reformers to grant women higher education on the same basis of men” (2). Women were seen as more of a domestic aid than an equal individual, and denied the right to an education. Many scientists have correctly used data, but the consequences of scientists using it incorrectly have been detrimental for the groups being discriminated against. Gould argues that the data from Broca’s brain measurements proved to be invalid for intelligence inferiority, and that the data was misused to support the social analyses.
Although the scientific use of anthropometrics in not abused in modern day society, scientists still incorrectly draw conclusions from data and statistics. Many statically fallacies occur where scientists will try and bend the statistics to prove their own personal opinion. For example, a scientist may deem his new invention or product to be 100% successful, but it could have only been tested 5 times. Even though the abuse of anthropometrics has been abandoned, scientific data abuse is still apparent in modern day
society.
Ulrich had a well explanation for her slogan on "well-behaved women." She supports her slogan by bringing up certain women stereotypes that have been going on throughout history. She uses these stereotypes to explain how certain people view on women.
Jane the virgin is a show about a woman who had her life planned out the way she wanted until it made a spiraling turn due to unfortunate events. When Jane was a young girl, she had made a promise to her grandma that she would save her virginity until marriage. Unfortunately, during a doctor's check up she was artificially inseminated. After she agreed to keep the baby her relationship with her finance when down the hill. Keeping the baby also caused her school work to be a little harder for her. An examination of Jane the virgin will demonstrate the concepts of process of listening, the benefits of power and being in denial.
Gould cites Paul Broca and Gustave Le Bon to display sciences’ discriminate nature on the intelligence of women. Through the explanation of Broca's mistakes in his interpreting of data, Gould uses logic in order to refute any claim that the size of a woman's brain validates she is unintelligent. Gould also uses Le Bon's caustic attack on women to inspire indignation, thus using appeals to emotion in a negative way to make his audience distrust the theory of lesser female intelligence when compared to men. L. Manouvrier's quote serves to demonstrate how even some of Broca's own followers did not accept his results as feasible, discrediting Broca even more. Gould refers to Maria Montessori because she took Broca's data and applied it to justify that women were more intelligent. Proving that the same numbers can support opposite cases, Gould strengthens his claim that the attempt to use science to discriminate against a certain group is futile. The individuals each make similar points in Gould's argument: science is not free from discrimination. Some of the sources are examples of injustices, while others reveal this prejudice. Each is necessary in Gould's argument and could not be removed without damaging his
Students in school typically work long hours in order to achieve high standards academically. Those who achieve the highest grades are honored with the title of valedictorian. However, the title has been under attack as students and parents call for the title to either be extended to more students or abolished entirely. In “Best in class by Margaret Talbot, Talbot claims that schools should keep the single valedictorian system, but reduce its overall importance; she claims that using contrast and selective presentation.
Samir Boussarhane During the early 20th century in the U.S, most children of the lower and middle class were workers. These children worked long, dangerous shifts that even an adult would find tiresome. On July 22, 1905, at a convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association in Philadelphia, Florence Kelley gave a famous speech regarding the extraneous child labor of the time. Kelley’s argument was to add laws to help the workers or abolish the practice completely.
During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the fight for equal and just treatment for both women and children was one of the most historically prominent movements in America. Courageous women everywhere fought, protested and petitioned with the hope that they would achieve equal rights and better treatment for all, especially children. One of these women is known as Florence Kelley. On July 22, 1905, Kelley made her mark on the nation when she delivered a speech before the National American Woman Suffrage Association, raising awareness of the cruel truth of the severity behind child labor through the use of repetition, imagery and oxymorons.
In her ,“Harvard”, address, actress, comedian and producer Amy Poehler speaks to the graduating class of 2011. Her speech is filled with her uplifting sense of humor and her down-to-earth personality that you can’t help but enjoy. Poehler utilizes various rhetorical strategies throughout her address such as allusion, and conveying pathos in a humourous as well as an emotional way. By using these, she successfully encourages the young students and families at Harvard University to work their hardest and take on the world.
I chose this word because the tone of the first chapter seems rather dark. We hear stories of the hopes with which the Puritans arrived in the new world; however, these hopes quickly turned dark because the Purtains found that the first buildings they needed to create were a prison, which alludes to the sins they committed; and a cemetery, which contradicts the new life they hoped to create for themselves.
In the passage the author addresses who Ellen Terry is. Not just an actress, but a writer, and a painter. Ellen Terry was remembered as Ellen Terry, not for her roles in plays, pieces of writing, or paintings. Throughout the essay the author portrays Ellen Terry in all aspects of her life as an extraordinary person by using rhetorical techniques such as tone, rhetorical question, and comparison.
...ignificant evidence for my research argument indicates that the nature of gender/sex consists of a wide consensus. The latter is significant to original sex differences in brain structure and the organized role through sex differential prenatal hormone exposures through the term used in the article as (the ‘hardwiring’ paradigm). The article is limited to scientific shortcoming that presents neuroscientific research on sex and gender for it lacks an analysis that goes beyond the observed results. The article is based on neuroscience studies and how it approached gender, yet the article suggests that gender should be examined through social, culture studies, ethnicity and race. This article will not form the foundation of my research but will be used a secondary material. The neuroscience evidences will be used to support my argument and will be used as an example.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Judy Seyfers Brady use a variety of rhetorical devices to sway their audiences. Each woman has a distinct style‒ Brady is satirical and frequently uses hyperbole in I Want a Wife, while Stanton is more formal and employs the ethos of the American Revolution in The Declaration of Sentiments. Overall, their pieces attack men by stating the offenses that men have committed, and declare their opposition to the offenses. They also highlight the oppression and the burden that men place on them and call for greater equality.
The world today revolves around a patriarchal society where it is a man’s world. Men are stereotyped to take jobs such as manual labor, construction, and armed forces while women are stereotyped to become nurses, caregivers, and cooks; but what makes it say that a woman can’t do manual labor or be a construction worker? Marc Breedlove, a behavioral endocrinologist at the University of California at Berkley, explains that gender roles “are too massive to be explained simply by society” (679). These gender behavior differences go far beyond our culture and into our genetics through Darwin’s theories of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution.
When creating a comparative rhetorical analysis of two different feminist essays, we must first define the term “feminism”. According to Merriam-Webster.com, feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”. Feminism is a also a long term social movement, one that’s been in the works since the early 1900’s. However, as any challenger to the norm might receive, the words ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’ have gotten a bad reputation. Throughout the years, popular opinion has agreed that if you’re a feminist, you hate men, and don’t shave. It’s a very close-minded belief, and both Lindy West and Roxane Gay agree. Both authors of the essays I am comparing today, West and Gay try and convey their beliefs that feminism isn’t what you think it is. However, they do it in very different ways. Who conveyed their beliefs of feminism better and the superior argument? That is what I am going to display today.
Vandermassen spends the first five chapters of her book outlining the scientific theories she feels feminists should pay more attention too. She also describes and critiques feminists who have argued against them. She looks at how Darwinian theories have been interpr...
Stephen Jay Gould’s 1980 essay “Women’s Brains” as found in his book, The Panda's Thumb, questions the validity of the “scientific” studies that have concluded women to be inferior to men for their lesser brain size. Gould elucidates the absurdity of scientific conclusions that can be obtained based on the premises which assumed the inferiority of women prior to any testing. Gould’s essay also explains that the studies performed by Paul Broca, a professor of clinical surgery at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, neglected comparisons of height, weight, and other factors of women when comparing their brain size to men’s. Gould exposes the unfair distribution of Broca’s sampling population, using women who were considerably older and men who